linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 20

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 21 Feb 2019 08:43:22 +0800
From:   Zhangshaokun <zhangshaokun@...ilicon.com>
To:     Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
CC:     Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-efi <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-integrity <linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Feb 20

Hi Ard,

On 2019/2/20 18:05, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 10:58, Jarkko Sakkinen
> <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 11:52:52AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 05:11:15PM +0800, Zhangshaokun wrote:
>>>> There is a compiler failure on arm64 platform, as follow:
>>>>
>>>>   AS      arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.o
>>>>   CC      kernel/trace/ring_buffer.o
>>>> In file included from security/integrity/ima/ima_fs.c:30:0:
>>>> security/integrity/ima/ima.h:176:7: error: redeclaration of enumerator ‘NONE’
>>>>   hook(NONE)   \
>>>>        ^
>>>> security/integrity/ima/ima.h:188:34: note: in definition of macro ‘__ima_hook_enumify’
>>>>  #define __ima_hook_enumify(ENUM) ENUM,
>>>>                                   ^
>>>> security/integrity/ima/ima.h:191:2: note: in expansion of macro ‘__ima_hooks’
>>>>   __ima_hooks(__ima_hook_enumify)
>>>>   ^
>>>> In file included from ./arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h:15:0,
>>>>                  from ./include/acpi/acpi_io.h:7,
>>>>                  from ./include/linux/acpi.h:47,
>>>>                  from ./include/linux/tpm.h:26,
>>>>                  from security/integrity/ima/ima.h:25,
>>>>                  from security/integrity/ima/ima_fs.c:30:
>>>> ./include/linux/efi.h:1716:2: note: previous definition of ‘NONE’ was here
>>>>   NONE,
>>>>   ^
>>>> scripts/Makefile.build:276: recipe for target 'security/integrity/ima/ima_fs.o' failed
>>>> make[3]: *** [security/integrity/ima/ima_fs.o] Error 1
>>>>
>>>> I dug it and it is the commit 901615cb916d ("tpm: move tpm_chip definition to include/linux/tpm.h")
>>>
>>> This results from a new include in tpm.h:
>>>
>>>   #include <linux/acpi.h>
>>>
>>> Must be fixed either in include/linux/efi.h or security/integrity/ima.h as
>>> those files have a name collision. Makes me wonder why neither has taken
>>> care of prefixing the constants properly.
>>
>> Preferably both subsystems should be fixed with proper 'EFI_' and 'IMA_'
>> prefixes. Defining a constant named as NONE in a non-generic subsystem
>> (e.g. not part of the core data structures of Linux) and especially
>> exporting it to include/linux is not too well considered act.
>>
> 
> Fixes for this have already been proposed, and should appear in -next shortly
> 
> The EFI one is here
> https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#label/linux-efi/FMfcgxwBVgrQRjglPkWRqRqVclGgVDnB
> 

Because of no privilege, the website is denied for me. Anyway, it's nice to have been fixed.

Thanks,
Shaokun

> Not sure about the IMA one, Mimi should be able to comment ...
> 
> .
>